Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Initially, the cops were happy to accept Michele's confession, but when they started examining the evidence, there were too many things that didn't fit with his confession. That Sabrina did it and he covered it up fits the evidence.

If you read the transcripts of his interrogation I believe you will see that the police were not happy at all with his confession. They led him to accuse Sabrina (in my opinion) and were not even very subtle in doing so.

 

[Fine]

Yet, we see that the person that alot of guilters quote, Barbie Nadeau is pulling a U-Turn and leaning towards innocence. Newspapers not only in US, but Italy are leaning towards innocence. Are you telling me that the Knox PR campaign could afford this kinda media change or have even the media now realized that Mignini duped them also.

____________________

It's not clear to me that Barbie's position has ever changed. She said this, in April, when her book, Angel Face, was released:

"I think that Amanda Knox has a very good chance of overturning this on appeal." Barbie

///

 

[Kaosium]

____________________

It's not clear to me that Barbie's position has ever changed. She said this, in April, when her book, Angel Face, was released:

"I think that Amanda Knox has a very good chance of overturning this on appeal." Barbie

///

That's different than thinking she's innocent. A third of these cases are overturned in Italy, and perhaps even she could see how weak the original case was against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Alt+F4]

A tiny streak of Amanda's blood was found on the faucet in the bathroom. It wasn't mixed with Meredith's DNA, and Amanda says it was from her pierced ear.

First of all, that streak of blood isn't "tiny" and Amanda is liar if she's claiming that amount of blood came from a pierced ear.

Here's a close up photo of the faucet:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?12

 

[RoseMontague]

First of all, that streak of blood isn't "tiny" and Amanda is liar if she's claiming that amount of blood came from a pierced ear.

Here's a close up photo of the faucet:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?12

I don't know if one tiny drop of blood could make that. It would probably take 2 drops.

 

[Alt+F4]

Indeed, Guede was most accommodating in this regard. Let's review the physical evidence against Guede found inside the murder room:

- Bloody fingerprints on Meredith's pillow
- Bloody shoe prints on the floor
- DNA inside Meredith's vagina
- DNA on the sleeve of Meredith's sweatshirt
- DNA on Meredith's bra
- DNA on Meredith's purse

Against that, we have Sollecito's DNA on the metal hook of the bra fastener, and absolutely no physical trace of Amanda Knox. And yet this "expert" asserts that they are the primary culprits in this vicious murder, whereas Guede played only a subordinate role.

You seem to be forgetting that in the appeal the defense is going to introduce testimony that someone could have murdered Meredith and leave as little physical evidence as Raffaele and Amanda did.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Kelly Michaels was convicted. And yet she was, through the collusion of police, prosecutors, social workers, and many other people who had no obvious motive to frame an innocent person.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why more than 20 innocent people in Wenatchee, WA, were sent to prison, again through the collusion of many people and with the support of the entire community.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why authorities in Illinois expended massive resources to prosecute two innocent people for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico, long after they knew who the real killer was. But they did.

None of these cases are even remotely similar to the case we are discussing.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't know if one tiny drop of blood could make that. It would probably take 2 drops.

If someone says it didn't come from Amanda's ear, then they need to explain where it did come from - presumably the person would like to imply that Amanda was injured in some kind of fight - perhaps scratched by Meredith.

Trouble is there was no evidence either on Amanda or Meredith's body that this occurred.

 

[RoseMontague]

If someone says it didn't come from Amanda's ear, then they need to explain where it did come from - presumably the person would like to imply that Amanda was injured in some kind of fight - perhaps scratched by Meredith.

Trouble is there was no evidence either on Amanda or Meredith's body that this occurred.

This is true. Did they examine her ear to see if it would confirm her story as well?

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Kelly Michaels was convicted. And yet she was, through the collusion of police, prosecutors, social workers, and many other people who had no obvious motive to frame an innocent person.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why more than 20 innocent people in Wenatchee, WA, were sent to prison, again through the collusion of many people and with the support of the entire community.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why authorities in Illinois expended massive resources to prosecute two innocent people for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico, long after they knew who the real killer was. But they did.

None of these cases are even remotely similar to the case we are discussing.

I think Charlie is pointing to what he sees as the similarities in the prosecution of these cases, not comparing the facts of one case to another.

 

[platonov]

Lets deal with the 'confusion' \ avoidance \ irrelevance.

Originally Posted by platonov
<snip>

On the more important & relevant 3rd & 4th points - No response. So, did I have it right ?

OK - There we have it. Straight answers eh.

<snip>

No, you have it wrong.

halides1

OK, as you don't wish to provide the answers I will do so.

We see from the extracts below that on the issue of dating DNA and what was testified to and accepted by the court it is quite clear.

So what is the direct relevance to this case of your take on CW's take on Hampikian's take on Garofano's supposed opinion.

None I would suggest.

p226
With regards to the mixture of DNA attributable to the biological profiles of Meredith and Amanda Knox, she affirmed that, certainly, there was blood content, there being a specific test carried out; further information given relative to the very pale pink colour could have led one to think that there might have been the presence of water. She added that in actuality there is water in blood, but in a different concentration; in blood there is less water than in a trace, which contains more water and is less rich in blood. Though, from the point of view of other substances (sweat, etc.), no tests were done. Therefore, it was definitely a mixture of biological substances, but it was not in any case possible to determine whether it was blood plus blood, or blood and saliva, or blood and exfoliation cells. One could only say that there was definitely blood present, and that the trace was found in the very same places.

p277
While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

This evidence is dealt with in other parts of the report also - they take the position that the 3 samples [under discussion] are a MK-blood\water mix with AK-DNA deposited during cleaning\washing.

ETA Perhaps the court and Stefanoni were being overly cautious [or not going beyond what the evidence could definitely show] - some of the AK DNA may have come from blood ?
As we know a single blood trace from AK alone was found on the sink.

.

 

[Brooktrout]

"Knox PR Juggernaut"

Well, under the influence of many forces, one can see very clearly by a scan of this morning's headlines, content, and photos that, from a publicity point of view, the worm has completely turned in the defendents' favour. I do not get the sense that the message is being driven from any corner, but narrative of Amanda and Rafaelle's innocence is now in charge.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the mixed DNA

So on my 1st & 2nd points I have to take your word for it.
My take is that I can still remember your selective quotation from the 'gift'

On the more important & relevant 3rd & 4th points - No response. So, did I have it right ?

OK - There we have it. Straight answers eh.

Why did you snip my Lipstadt ref ; I was trying to move upmarket as Lionel Hutz wasn't to everyones taste it seems

.

platonov,

You don’t need to rely upon me for the verification of quotes. You can look them up yourself. With respect to Amanda’s so-called Gift, I quoted a passage I had need seen discussed before (IIRC), and I gave a citation to the whole quote, so that people could read it and come to their own conclusions. However, you also asked about the context of the quote, and I did find something that might be overlooked, namely the fact that the basin was sampled in two separate locations. Here is the passage from Darkness Descending, page 371; it is inset and is apparently a direct quote from Colonel Garofano:

I saw on the film the way they collected the sample in the washbasin. The fact that the sample was collected by wiping both the edge and the plughole is dangerous. You’re likely to find all sorts of stuff in the plughole. However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU [relative fluorescence unit] value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast. We have the same result on the cotton-bud box. The light-switch was over-scrubbed, but from the film the way the cotton-bud box was handled was definitely good enough. There too we have mixed blood. So that’s pretty significant for Amanda. Unfortunately for her, she bled at the same time Meredith was bleeding. That’s a lot to explain. [endquote]

The problems previously identified in this argument are that one cannot deduce what tissue type produced DNA from the peak heights (which are typically reported in RFUs) and that one cannot decide when DNA was deposited from the DNA profile itself. However, the issue of where the sampling was done is equally problematic for the prosecution, IMHO. Suppose that Amanda dripped blood on the plug plus or minus a few hours from the time of death. If that were the case, then Colonel Garofano’s other points could be correct, and there would still be an innocent explanation for the DNA. That having been said, I would think that biological matter from brushing one’s teeth or from washing one’s hands is a reasonable explanation for Amanda’s DNA being present.

With respect to your point 3, I have already indicated that Colonel Garofano is a high-profile source of information for the general public in this case. We have heard plenty about Steve Moore from the pro-guilt side of the debate, so what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am not calling anyone an idiot; I am saying that Colonel Garofano is wrong.

With respect to point 4, I have a reservation. The jury from the appeal might well interpret this evidence differently from how Massei did; therefore, what Massei said need not circumscribe our discussion. Nevertheless, it might be worth considering. I believe that I have answered all of your questions. Why don’t you quote the relevant passages from the Massei report, and we can discuss them?

 

[platonov]

platonov,

You don’t need to rely upon me ..............

<snip>

I didn't [dont] - see above.

.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Kelly Michaels was convicted. And yet she was, through the collusion of police, prosecutors, social workers, and many other people who had no obvious motive to frame an innocent person.

I think Charlie is pointing to what he sees as the similarities in the prosecution of these cases, not comparing the facts of one case to another.

In the hierarchies of government, courts and police, people do what the top of the hierachy tells them to do whether it is right or wrong. Furthermore, the population has the instincts of herd animals.

As an aside: Even if individuals were born to be leaders, they have been trained and conditioned to behave like one of a herd. Leaders probably aren't even leaders in a hierachy, just followers of the next highest level in the hierachy.

Anyway, people frequently follow the leader even if he is wrong. (Remember Reverend Jones and Hitler?)

And people flock together. Notice that they wear the same fashions and buy the latest fad product?

One should not OVERLOOK the bad leader or the tendancy to flock when investigating the reasons for the incarceration of the innocent.

who had no obvious motive to frame an innocent person

No obvious motive, just the obvious tendancies just presented.

There are scientific tests discussed in Wikipedia that elaborate and prove the points just made.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei on the mixed blood samples

halides1

OK, as you don't wish to provide the answers I will do so.

SNIP

This evidence is dealt with in other parts of the report also - they take the position that the 3 samples [under discussion] are a MK-blood\water mix with AK-DNA deposited during cleaning\washing.

ETA Perhaps the court and Stefanoni were being overly cautious [or not going beyond what the evidence could definitely show] - some of the AK DNA may have come from blood ?
As we know a single blood trace from AK alone was found on the sink.

.

platonov,

Our most recent comments were written almost concurrently, it seems. I scanned Dr. Stefanoni's comments quickly, and I did not disagree with anything. However, Fine quoted a passage from Angel Face that indicated that at least one juror drew the inference that the samples were mixed blood (or at least could be). Therefore, the defense might consider underlining the point to the jury that the samples are basically worthless as evidence, which is what Dr. Stefanoni's testimony in effect means, particularly when coupled with the way the basin was sampled.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

waiting for answers

I didn't [dont] - see above.

.

When will you reply to my points? You have the context of the quote.

post script
Thanks for provided the information from Massei. It is a rare thing that you supply more than your opinion. It is equally rare that Dr. Stefanoni's opinions are in accord with generally accepted DNA forensic principles. I will have to mark this day in my calendar.

 

[platonov]

platonov,

Our most recent comments were written almost concurrently, it seems. I scanned Dr. Stefanoni's comments quickly, and I did not disagree with anything. However, Fine quoted a passage from Angel Face that indicated that at least one juror drew the inference that the samples were mixed blood (or at least could be). Therefore, the defense might consider underlining the point to the jury that the samples are basically worthless as evidence, which is what Dr. Stefanoni's testimony in effect means, particularly when coupled with the way the basin was sampled.

On the concurrence issue - straight timely answers are always better, inferences have been drawn (again)

They might indeed and probably will.

Nonsense. The court did & will have access to all the evidence/case file.

.

 

[platonov]

'waiting for answers' - thats good !

When will you reply to my points?

I have already answered - prior to your post. How's that for timeliness !

I think you owe me some answers first in any case.

post script
Haven't you read Massie ?? - in any case that's not the full evidence, merely (part of) the summary in the 'justification'

.

 

[RoseMontague]

We see from the extracts below that on the issue of dating DNA and what was testified to and accepted by the court it is quite clear.

Quote:
p277
While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

.

LOL. So they ignore their own expert saying they can't determine the date or if it was deposited the same time or even what part of it is the blood of whom; the court is going to just assume the opposite of these things because they think the other evidence (evidence in which they have made similar assumptions) provides a good convincement that it must be so because Amanda must have done it.

ETA: Quote from Mignini:

The male reporter asks Prosecutor Mignini what was the most damning evidence in this case? Mignini replies: the knife, the bra clasp, and the mixed blood traces in the bathroom.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C228/